This also goes for the other German nations like Saxony.

[deleted]

I wonder if ATG planned to conquer China. As far as I know, one of the reasons why he stopped his eastward expansion is because his soldier threatened him of mutiny. Maybe that's one of the reason why he did not invade China (and the rest of Indian subcontinent). Correct me if I'm wrong and please enlighten me.

Basically, we were having a discussion and I said that a lot of the conflict in the Middle East was due to the fact that borders were drawn by the British/French after they gave up the land they had amassed in the Middle East following WWI, which didn't really take into account the ethnic/religious differences of the groups living there. (Please correct me if any of this is wrong/too simplified!)

My dad apparently was unaware of this, but he went on to say that the Middle East has "always fought each other even before that". I have no idea how accurate that statement is; I don't know too much about Middle Eastern history, but I was under the impression that other than some pretty harsh religious wars between Shia and Sunni Muslims, the area wasn't really in any more conflict that most of the rest of the world at any corresponding time in history.

I'm not trying to get into any political debates or make broad generalizations about the Middle East, I was just wondering what the levels of conflict in the Middle East were and whether they were any more deeply conflicted prior to WWI as compared to other nations/areas.

Presumably most of the people at the time threw anything at the problem to see if it stuck, there are tons of stories of plague doctors, and leaching, and miasmas. I've heard of some towns that survived because they quarantined the sick but are there any accounts of people trying to keep clean and get rid of the pests to fight the problem?

Example: Marie is Duchess of Lorraine and Queen consort of France. Would her name be "Duchess Marie" or "Queen Marie?"

I was reading about the Battle of Berlin and it really stuck out to me that so many World War I veterans had to go to war all over again in the battle.

Were there accounts of these experienced men being particularly effective? Perhaps they were assigned positions of leadership commanding the younger or non-veteran draftees?

So I've tried to suss out sources on this (and searched AskHistorians), but on the Mark 39 Nuclear bomb that landed in Goldsboro - were the 4 arming/safeties on the weapon entirely because the plane was crashing or is it possible that the bomb was partially armed before the plane broke up?

In 18th and 19th Century Europe, you had hussars, lancers, cuirassiers, etc. They were deployed in significant numbers and had finally-honed tactics and doctrine. Meanwhile, in the USA, there only seemed to be dragoons, and they rarely had a decisive impact on battles the way they did in Europe. What was the reason for this disparity of doctrines?

I know Homer isn't the best source for historical accuracy, but his works aren't complete fantasies. He does have great knowledge and awareness of Greece's geographic surroundings, which leads me to assume that he wouldn't make up some random country or city-state if it wasn't crucial to his plot. I know Phaecia was a made up utopian society in the Odyssey, but it was needed to carry the plot.

Ethiopia was mentioned several times in the Iliad and the Odyssey with no great detail. It seems unlikely to me that the ancient Greeks had contact with Ethiopia, or Axum if I'm guessing the right timeline, unless there was a different civilization named Ethiopia at the time??

I know that divorce was a thing in ancient Rome, and Julius Caesar divorced his wife (I think) but just how did this process work? Was it anything like modern procedures and were there slightly different methods depending on whether you were a member of the aristocracy, from the provinces, a politician etc.

And in the US about 30% of marriages end with divorce, so do we have any idea what the statistics were for Rome?

Sorry I know this is a bit of a gotcha question, but after seeing an older response to someone asking "Is the "YouTube historian" Lindybeige reliable?" The person responding didn't answer the question of whether or not they were reliable, just that he was not a historian. What qualifies people as historians?

Because it seemed clearly from this persons claims about 50% or more of the actual historians throughout human history would not have been.

Thx ~ Jim

Additionally, where does the Ace come from? The Jack?